# Matter of Mnorx, Inc.

> New York Court of Appeals · March 22, 1979 · 46 N.Y.2d 985

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787063

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of MNORX, Inc., Et Al., Appellants. Phillip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 22, 1979
- **Citations:** 46 N.Y.2d 985; 416 N.Y.S.2d 228; 389 N.E.2d 823; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1905
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Jones
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787063

## Opinion text

OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
On the record as a whole there exists substantial evidence to support the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. True, the evidence is in conflict: the contracts executed by the parties constitute proof of the existence of employment relationships, while the testimony of the witnesses indicates that no such relationships were contemplated. But the board was free to choose between these alternative factual versions (State Div. of Human Rights v Columbia Univ. in City of N. Y., 39 NY2d 612, 616 ; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 ) and, since the evidence reasonably supports the board’s choice, we may not interpose our judgment to reach a contrary conclusion (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 ). Indeed, the execution by appellants of the various contracts containing language evincing employment status, being inconsistent with their positions at the hearing, constituted admissions, not only for the purpose of discrediting their contentions but also as evidence of the facts admitted (see Richardson, Evidence [10th ed — Prince], §§ 209, 210; 4 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed], § 1048, pp 5-6).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787063. Public record. Not legal advice.